sdmitriev marked an inline comment as done.
sdmitriev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/tools/clang-offload-bundler/ClangOffloadBundler.cpp:888
+ // treat missing host triple as error if we do unbundling.
+ if ((Unbundle && HostTargetNum > 1) || (!Unbundle && HostTargetNum != 1)) {
Error = true;
----------------
sdmitriev wrote:
> sdmitriev wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > sdmitriev wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > I believe, for unbundling we also must check for `!= 1` rather than
> > > > > `> 1`. Zero host targets also is not allowed.
> > > > But the whole idea of this change is to remove requirement to provide
> > > > host triple for unbundling operation. Target bundle(s) can always be
> > > > extracted without extracting host, so host bundle is optional.
> > > > Therefore zero host targets should not be considered as error for
> > > > unbundling.
> > > And why do we need this? I think it would be better to check that the
> > > requested host triple matches the bundled one using this parameter rather
> > > than removing it.
> > > And why do we need this?
> >
> > As I wrote in the summary it is a usability issue. You may for example want
> > to extract device object for a particular offload target to examine its
> > contents (symbols, sections, etc..), but currently you also have to extract
> > host bundle as well even if you do not need it.
> >
> > > I think it would be better to check that the requested host triple
> > > matches the bundled one using this parameter rather than removing it.
> >
> > So you suggest to check that host bundle name that exists in the fat image
> > matches the host bundle name provided it command line if it was provided?
> > Should it be an error if names do not match?
> >
> I have updated patch to do error checking if host bundle name was provided in
> command line.
@ABataev I believe the host bundle name is now being checked as you suggested.
Can you please confirm that it matches your expectations?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66601/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66601
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
